It is hard for me to be objective as I am a leash wearing, poop-picking-up dog owner with dog-friendly dogs but, having walked many a trail in local parks with not so responsible dog owners, I realize everyone does not heed to my standards. It is not enjoyable to step around piles and be accosted by overly friendly or underly friendly dogs. I really can see both sides of this issue. Maybe there could be dogless trails and dog friendly trails. Or maybe there could be trails that allowing dogs on could be tested to see the impact.

We love travelling with our dogs. They are well behaved and many folks will talk to a person with a dog that might not otherwise. I guess if I had a vote I would vote to open some trails but not all. Dogs or not, even the trails make an impact on the environment and I certainly wouldn't want to increase that just for my own pleasure.

I used to buy the National pards pass every year and try to visit at least 3 parks a year while on vacation. But primarily because of the current restrictions on pets I have stopped visiting or supporting the national parks in any way. When I travel I always take my Bokyn spaniel and I don't like to leave him locked up in an RV while I hike the trails or other simple site seeing that is restricted in the parks. As far as behavior goes, I would say pets that I have seen in most cases are better behaved and less distructive than 90% of the children and adults that I've encountered in the parks.
Like I said, I no longer visit or support the national parks, instead I vacation in the national forrest areas that have camping facilities. Lot less crowded, more hiking, in many cases much prettier and than the parks.

I always travel with my dogs and would never consider leaving them in someone else's care. While this limits the places we can go, I'd rather stay home with my dogs than travel without them. Not all pet owners feel this way, and I certainly understand that. I also understand that the rest of the world shouldn't have to adjust to my personal preferences - just because I want to be with my dogs all of the time, doesn't mean the parks should be more flexible and allow my dogs on the trails. However, if they did, I would be a responsible pet owner and pick up after my dogs, keep them restrained and under control, and ensure that they didn't ruin anyone else's visit (which is more than most parents do with their children these days).

The park policies of not allowing dogs on trails does not keep me away from National Parks. However, it is often difficult to find convenient lodging near the national parks that allows dogs. Several of the large, national hotel brands now allow dogs, but you generally don't find these hotel brands near the parks. So, for me, it's not the park policies keeping me away, but the lack of dog-friendly accommodations nearby. We are actually considering buying an RV for this reason.

For anyone interested in visiting Yellowstone with their dogs, I recommend the Clubhouse Inn in West Yellowstone. We stayed there on a trip several years ago and they are very pet friendly.

No.

I travel often with my 2 Golden Retreivers. They are well behaved and more importantly their owner is respectful of other people and dogs they meet along the way. Because of the National Park rules I spend more time in National Forest areas. Colorado is a good example. I avoided Rocky Mtn. National Park but enjoy the surrounding areas (Monach Lake as an example has a nice 4 mile hike)
I would very much enjoy hiking the National Park trails with my dogs on a leash. They do make me feel safer as a female hiker. Maybe this could be tried on some of the trails on a trial basis. Just like horses are limited to some trails. I would very much enjoy a change in the National park rules. I always buy a yearly park pass but don't use it as often as I wish I could.

I like the idea of allowing pets on those trails where horses are allowed. Pets are not going to do as much damage as horses, and it would allow some access to those with dogs.
While those responding here (and many others) would exercise great control, there are too many who would not.
I generally avoid trails where horses are allowed, so this compromise would not bother me.

Kurt, you have introduced a reader participation topic that should be a major issue. It will be interesting to see if this article get's as much reader interest as did past articles on carrying hand guns in parks.

As a former park ranger-naturalist, and a pet owner for the past 40 years, I have been on both sides of this issue. In my park ranger days, I was 100% opposed to dogs in parks, even though I met my future wife at Zion NP while she was walking her large German sheperd off-the-leash, giving me the chance to inform her of park rules.

I can't begin to count all the times I encountered dogs off the leash while hiking the Mist Trail in Yosemite. "Is that dog yours?" "No ranger, it's not ours." "Well then, I guess I'll have to tie my belt around his collar and take him with me back to park headquarters." "Wait a minute ranger, we know the person who owns that dog!" "Well please tell the person who owns this dog that his animal is not allowed on this trail, at all, and will have to be returned to Yosemite Valley." "Hey ranger, what's the fine?"

Since those days, I've become a dog owner myself and, our dog has become our third child. He has all the rights of a child in our family. Our vacations are definitely influenced by where we can and cannot take our animal. Most times we take him. A few times we don't. When we return, he acts as if he's been orphaned.

Now, my question is this: Why is it that the Canadian National Parks are so pet friendly? We found dogs hiking off the leach (but very well behaved) along the trail to Larch Valley, above Moraine Lake in Banff National Park, and this trail was posted for Grizz, so people were hiking in groups of 6 or more. Why is it that dogs are permitted in designated wilderness areas of the National Forests? Why is it that under much more crowded conditions, dogs are permitted nearly everywhere in the cities and forests of Europe, including in trains, hotels, gest houses, chalets, and restaurants?

Is there bonafide evidence of dogs in parks creating a serious ecological impact? If so, why is this impact not also evident in the National Forests where dog rules are much more lenient? To what extent does the occasional dog chasing wildlife simply amount to additional, if not much needed excersize, on behalf of both parties? On the other hand, if a dog were to encounter a bear, wolf, mountain lion, or coyote, would a gun-carrying pet owner be justified in discharging the weapon to save his animal's life?

I don't think the issue of pets in parks will be solved with Kurt's "reader participation" question, but I do think it will attract quite a bit of commentary. I do think that quite a few potential park visitors avoid national parks because they are perceived to be pet unfriendly. Others take their pet anyway, being prepared to ask the question: "Hey ranger, what's the fine?"

Working in a park and owning pets, I can see both sides of the issues. Half the dogs visiting the park are not well behaved and shouldn't be trusted near a cliff with a 1,000 ft drop. The other half are wonderful. Having worked in a NPS site that allowed dogs on leash, I would love to see all horse trails opened up to dog visitation as well. Those trails tend to be in the back-country and not heavily visited. A hiker with their dog on leash could have a nice hike on those trails.